Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Calladine who wrote (33558)	6/20/2001 9:58:38 AM
From: Greg h2o	Respond to of 42804

jim, i could write on this subject for days...especially, given many of the inaccuracies of this article. however, since i actually have a job to attend to (oh, and i handle retirement plans for many of atlanta's top not-for-profit organizations), my time on this subject will be limited. a few key points: -i've converted MANY defined benefit plans to 401k's and profit sharing plans. without exception, EVERY one of the employees fared better than under the paltry return assumptions used in the defined benefit plan when compared to returns they've received over the last 10 years. YES, they take on a DIFFERENT TYPE of risk.... but at least they are doing more for themselves in the long-run. and, it is certainly a more fair approach to ALL employees. -look at the list of companies they used in the article's facts (to back up a bs premis). LU, BA, etc.... ALL of which have had layoffs. OF COURSE the dollar amounts placed into 401k's would be reduced. there are LESS EMPLOYEES! i really have NO idea why they even bothered with that fact. it's a useless measurement. now, if they showed me that the dollar amount/ employee was reduced, i'd have to wonder why the employees contributed less on their own behalfs...you know, someone needs to take personal responsibility...oh, i forgot, let's all depend on the employer and the government.... -many of these employers use "profit sharing" plans as a portion of their retirement plans.... "profit sharing" plan has come to mean "no matter if there are really profits to share, give me the money" plan. -as always, it comes down to a free market. those who don't provide adequate benefits do not retain capable employees. simple as that. employees can vote with their feet. pretty damned easy to do. you don't like your benefits, look somewhere else. -employers also pay 7.5% of annual salaries to the biggest bs government give-away in the entire socialistic give-away scheme. guess i don't need to tell you which one....oh, and i get to pay BOTH sides of it....of which i likely won't see squat. -if you can show me ONE statistic that shows the cost of employee benefits has declined over the ANY year in the last decade, please do so. i know it's "scary" to some out there that more decisions are shouldered by employees, but isn't that what most people want? or should we go back to the paternalistic ways of the 60's and 70's?